MISSOURI CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri, J. E. Riney, Don G. Williams, Robert F. Love,
Commissioners of State Tax Commission of Missouri, John K. Travers, Collector
of Revenue, City of St. Louis, and Glenn J. McBrady, Assessor, City of St.
Louis, Defendants-Respondents.
No. 59551.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
Dec. 19, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1978.
Church whose tangible personal property had been added to tax rolls by city
assessor appealed to Board of Equalization and State Tax Commission and,
obtaining no relief, sought judicial review, claiming exemption from ad valorem
taxation on ground that its property was used exclusively for religious
worship. The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Lackland H. Bloom, J.,
denied relief and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Rendlen, J., held
that: (1) twenty-two proposed exhibits which had been marked and identified
during testimony of taxpayer's sole witness, but which were neither offered nor
accepted as evidence by State Tax Commission would not be considered a part of
record for judicial review, where Commission had before it no offer of evidence
or objections thereto on which to rule and it had not been apprised of attitude
of Tax Commission's counsel who stated to trial court and to Supreme Court in
oral argument that he would not have objected to introduction of exhibits had
they been offered; (2) constitutional and statutory exemption from ad valorem
taxation of property used "exclusively for religious worship," the term
"religious worship" embodies as a minimum requirement a belief in the Supreme
Being, and (3) evidence supported Tax Commission's findings that church
claiming exemption from ad valorem taxation on ground that its property was
used exclusively for religious worship appeared to be more in applied
philosophy which had religious connotations but which fell short of being
devoted to worship of Supreme Being.
Affirmed.
Seiler, J., concurred in result in separate opinion file.
[1] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE
Generally, scope of judicial review of administrative agency decisions is
limited to determination of whether order is supported by competent and
substantial evidence upon the whole record. V.A.M.S. s 536.140, subd. 2(3).
[1] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE
Generally, scope of judicial review of administrative agency decisions is
limited to determination of whether order is supported by competent and
substantial evidence upon the whole record. V.A.M.S. s 536.140, subd. 2(3).
[2] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE
Where case involves only application by agency of law to facts, court may weigh
evidence for itself, giving due weight to opportunity of agency to observe
witnesses and to expertise and experience of agency.
[3] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE
Although technical rules of evidence are not controlling in administrative
hearings, fundamental rules of evidence apply.
[4] TAXATION
Twenty-two proposed exhibits which had been marked and identified during
testimony of taxpayer's sole witness but which were neither offered nor
accepted as evidence by State Tax Commission would not be considered a part of
record for judicial review, where Commission had before it no offer of evidence
or objections thereto on which to rule and it had not been apprised of attitude
of Tax Commission's counsel who stated to trial court and to Supreme Court in
oral argument that he would not have objected to introduction of exhibits had
they been offered.
[5] TAXATION
Within constitutional and statutory exemption from ad valorem taxation of
property used "exclusively for religious worship," the term "religious worship"
embodies as a minimum requirement a belief in the Supreme Being.
V.A.M.S.Const. art. 10, s 6; V.A.M.S. s 137.100; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.
[5] TAXATION
Within constitutional and statutory exemption from ad valorem taxation of
property used "exclusively for religious worship," the term "religious worship"
embodies as a minimum requirement a belief in the Supreme Being.
V.A.M.S.Const. art. 10, s 6; V.A.M.S. s 137.100; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.
[6] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Requiring devotion to worship of Supreme Being as sine qua non to
classification as religion and entitlement to exemption from ad valorem
taxation does not contravene First Amendment. V.A.M.S.Const. art. 10, s 6;
V.A.M.S. s 137.100; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.
[6] TAXATION
Requiring devotion to worship of Supreme Being as sine qua non to
classification as religion and entitlement to exemption from ad valorem
taxation does not contravene First Amendment. V.A.M.S.Const. art. 10, s 6;
V.A.M.S. s 137.100; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.
[7] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE
Administrative agency may base its decision solely on finding of lack of
credible testimony, though such testimony is uncontradicted or unimpeached, but
agency may not arbitrarily disregard or ignore undisputed testimony of witness
not shown to have been impeached or disbelieved by Commission.
[8] TAXATION
While State Tax Commission's findings are not insulated from review, court must
give weight to opportunity of agency to observe the witnesses.
[9] TAXATION
Law places substantial burden on those claiming exemptions from ad valorem
taxation on ground that property is used exclusively for religious worship to
establish that their property falls within exempt class. V.A.M.S.Const. art.
10, s 6; V.A.M.S. ss 137.100, 137.100(5).
[10] TAXATION
Taxation is the rule and exemption therefrom the exception and exemption claims
are not favored in the law.
[11] TAXATION
Evidence supported Tax Commission's finding that church claiming exemption from
ad valorem taxation on ground that its property was used exclusively for
religious worship was not devoted to worship of Supreme Being. V.A.M.S.Const.
art. 10, s 6; V.A.M.S. ss 137.100, 137.100(5).
*838 Alan C. Kohn, Thomas J. Frawley, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
James J. Wilson, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, for defendants-
respondents.
RENDLEN, Judge.
This proceeding arose with the addition of appellant's tangible personal
property to the tax rolls for the year 1974 by the St. Louis City Assessor.
Obtaining no relief by successive appeals to the Board of Equalization and the
State Tax Commission, appellant sought judicial review claiming exemption from
ad valorem taxation under Mo.Const. Art. X, s 6, and s 137.100,[FN1] on the
ground its property was "used exclusively for religious worship".[FN2] No
challenge is made to the assessed valuation of appellant's property but only to
the denial of the claimed exemption.
FN1. All statutory references are to RSMo 1969.
FN2. Mo.Const. Art. X, s 6 provides in pertinent part: "(A)ll property,
real and personal, . . . not held for private or corporate profit and used
exclusively for religious worship, . . . may be exempted from taxation by
general law." (Emphasis ours.) Pursuant to this authority, the legislature
by s 137.100(5), RSMo 1969 exempted from state, county and local taxation,
"All property, real and personal, actually and regularly used exclusively
for religious worship, for schools and colleges, or for purposes purely
charitable and not held for private or corporate profit, . . ." (Emphasis
ours.)
[1][2] Generally the scope of judicial review for administrative agency
decisions is limited to a determination of whether the order is supported by
"competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record" as provided in s
536.140-2(3). However, this case does not involve the exercise by the agency
of administrative discretion in the light of the facts under s 536.140-2, but
only the application by the agency of the law to the facts, accordingly the
court may weigh the evidence for itself giving due *839 weight to the
opportunity of the agency to observe the witnesses and to the expertise and
experience of the Commission, s 536.140-3. It is by this standard we examine
appellant's contentions of error.
[3][4] In the hearing before the Commission twenty-two proposed exhibits had
been marked and identified during testimony of the appellant's sole witness
though they were neither offered nor accepted as evidence by the Commission.
[FN3] Urging their consideration by this court, appellant cites Hilke v.
Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, 441 S.W.2d 730, 733 (Mo.App.1969)
as authority for such consideration, however, we perceive factual differences
distinguishing Hilke from the case at bar. There, in a claim for disability
benefits, certain medical reports had not been properly offered before the
Firemen's Retirement System Board. On appeal the court stated: "Although the
record does not show the reports were offered in evidence in ritualistic
language, we hold that the method of putting them before the Board for its
consideration fully met the less formal procedural requirements of an
administrative hearing." (l.c. 733) The items so considered, despite lack of
formal offer, were medical reports prepared pursuant to the provisions of s
87.160.2, for the express purpose of informing the Board of the facts and the
conclusions and recommendations of the medical examiners. It is clear the
statute requiring the examining physicians to "report in writing to the board,"
contemplated that the reports be available to assist the Board in its
deliberation and equally important the Board and the parties intended the use
of those reports as evidence.[FN4] Those facts, not present here, were
determinative of the issue. Though counsel for the Tax Commission stated to
the trial court and to this court in oral argument he would not have objected
to the introduction of the exhibits had they been offered, the fact remains
they were not and no stipulation waiving objection to their consideration has
been presented. The Commission had before it no offer of evidence nor
objections thereto on which to rule, neither was the Commission apprised of
counsel's later announced attitude on the matter. Although technical rules of
evidence are not controlling in administrative hearings, fundamental rules of
evidence are applicable. State ex rel. Bond v. Simmons, 299 S.W.2d 540
(Mo.App.1957). Consistent with these holdings, s 536.070 provides in
subsection 2 that "each party" in an administrative hearing "shall have the
right . . . to introduce exhibits." (Emphasis ours.) No mention is made of
other procedures for admission of exhibits as a part of the record in such
proceedings except subsection 5 which provides that "Records and documents of
the agency (which also must be offered in evidence) . . . may be considered as
a part of the record by reference thereto when so offered," (Emphasis ours).
*840 No provision is made that records of any other type may be received in
this manner. While we do not suggest that parties may not stipulate for the
admission of such proposed evidence and waive objection thereto, no authority
appears for the course contended by appellant. The exhibits will not be
considered a part of the record for review.
FN3. These exhibits consist, among others, of the appellant's Articles of
Incorporation and amendments thereto, bylaws, letters of commendation for
charitable work done, a bound volume entitled "The Background and
Ceremonies of the Church of Scientology of California, Worldwide" which
appellant's witness, Rev. Rock, identified as "the ceremonies book that we
use at Sunday services and we use this as a standard format for our other
ceremonies: weddings, christenings, funerals. And it is also background
information which relate to philosophical roots of the church to other
religions, Buddhism, Hinduism and early Christianity." Another book
entitled "Scientology: A World Religion Emerges in the Space Age" was
described as a recently published work containing background information
concerning the philosophy and ceremonies of the "Church of Scientology".
FN4. The court in Hilke at 733 states: "Early in the hearing plaintiff's
counsel referred to plaintiff's injury report lodged in one of the Board's
two files and said, 'I imagine it is part of this official document that we
have introduced in evidence here.' Defendant's counsel agreed and
thereupon the Board's files were marked as Exhibits 1 and 2. Later,
plaintiff's counsel formally offered other documents in evidence, but in
speaking of documents already in Exhibits 1 and 2 he referred to them as
'part of the file.' Near the end of the Board hearing, defendant's counsel
wished to introduce City Ordinance 50707 as Exhibit 3; he stated he wanted
the record to show that the ordinance was introduced as an exhibit 'with
the others.' . . ." (Emphasis ours.)
The Commission (whose extensive findings and conclusions are set out in the
attached appendix) properly found the office equipment and furniture in
question were "used in the promotion of the organization including such
purposes as record keeping and providing mailings to the membership." As to
the religious nature of appellant, the Commission concluded that "while the
appellant has some of the trappings and accouterments of an organized religion,
it appears to be more an applied philosophy which has a certain religious
connotation, but which falls short of being devoted to the worship of the
Supreme Being, which this Commission concludes is necessary for the property
owner to have its property considered exclusively for religious worship."
(Emphasis ours.) Further that "an applied religious philosophy" is not
identical for purposes of exemption "with an organized religion devoted to
religious worship." The Commission then held: "The personal property of the
appellant has not, therefore been shown to be used exclusively for religious or
charitable purposes and therefore cannot be exempted from ad valorem
taxation." Considering the findings and conclusions in their entirety and
particularly those immediately above cited, it appears the order rests not on
the lack of exclusivity or extent of use, but on the failure to show the
character of the use as "for religious worship." The Commission determined the
statutory and constitutional phrases "used exclusively for religious worship"
postulate more than an "applied philosophy which has a certain religious
connotation". It found the statute and constitution instead require a belief
in and devotion to a Supreme Being. For reasons hereinafter discussed we
affirm.
The term religious worship in the commonly accepted sense includes as a
necessary minimum a belief in the Supreme Being of the universe. Generally
religious worship is expressed by prayers, reverence, homage and adoration paid
to a deity and include the seeking out by prayer and otherwise the will of the
deity for divine guidance. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American
Language, Second College Edition, copyrighted in 1974, defines religion as
"belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as
the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe; b) expression of such a belief in
conduct and ritual." "Worship" is defined as "reverence or devotion for a
deity; religious homage or veneration; b) a church service or other right
showing this." In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, copyrighted
1976, religion is defined as "the personal commitment to and serving of God or
a God with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as
found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way
of life recognized as incumbent upon true believers, and typically the relating
of oneself to an organized body of believers." Another definition suggested
is "a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or
supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own, humanity's, or all
nature's destiny." In this authority worship is defined as "the reverence or
veneration tendered a divine being or supernatural power; also: an act,
process, or instance of expressing such veneration by performing or taking part
in religious exercises or ritual." Other dictionaries consulted provide
similar definitions.
In 1890 the United States Supreme Court stated "The term 'religion' has
references to one's view of his relations to his Creator, and to the
obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of
obedience to his will." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342, 10 S.Ct. 299,
300, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890). Similarly the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in
McMasters v. State, 21 Okl.Cr. 318, 207 P. 566 (1922) defined religion as
"all forms of belief in the existence *841 of superior beings, exercising
power over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct with future
rewards and punishments." Justice Hammer in Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop and
Consistory of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, et al., 142 Misc. 894,
255 N.Y.S. 653 (1962) described the term as "a bond uniting man to God and a
virtue whose purpose is to render God the worship due him as the source of all
being and the principle of all government of things." Mr. Justice Hughes in
his dissent in United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 633, 51 S.Ct. 570,
578, 75 L.Ed. 1302 (1931) (the dissent involved another issue) stated: "The
essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to
those arising from any human relation." Joining in this dissent were Holmes,
Stone and Brandeis. Hughes' isolation and identification of the indispensable
ingredient of religion remains a basic guide in this area of the law. When
considering the exemption provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act
of 1940 for those conscientiously opposed to participation in war "by reason of
religious training and belief" the 9th Circuit in Berman v. United States,
156 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1946) after citing the above quoted phrase on the
essence of religion from Macintosh stated: (l.c. 380)
"It is our opinion that the expression, 'by reason of religious training and
belief' is plain language, and was written into the statute for the specific
purpose of distinguishing between a conscientious social belief, or a sincere
devotion to a high moralistic philosophy, and one based upon an individual's
belief in his responsibility to an authority higher and beyond any worldly
one. . . . We are not saying that man's comprehension of religion is static
and remains today the same as a short hundred and fifty odd years ago in the
area of our constitution-making. . . . Nature and God seem so close to
Oneness that some thinkers blend them inseparately."
Commenting on the nature of religion the court stated, it "involves a
process of vital and reciprocal interplay 'between the human and the
supernatural.' " More recently the Supreme Court of Kansas in Board of Trustees
of the Kansas East Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Cogswell,
205 Kan. at page 847, 473 P.2d at page 1 (1970), adopted and applied the
definition of religion enunciated in Davis v. Beason, supra, as that
intended by the Kansas constitutional and statutory provisions permitting tax
exemption for "all property used exclusively for . . . religious purposes."
The Supreme Court in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S.Ct. 850,
13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965), (urged as authority for reversal by appellant)
interpreting the Universal Military Training and Service Act and claimed
exemptions by conscientious objectors under s 6-J, when reversing the
convictions, addressed the meaning of the expression "religious training and
belief" as used in the Act. The Act exempted those who opposed participation
in war by reason of their "religious training and belief" and the court pointed
out that the Act defined that phrase as "an individual's belief in a relation
to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human
relation, but (not including) essentially political, sociological, or
philosophical views or a merely personal moral code." (l.c. 165, 85 S.Ct.
853) The court observed that Congress had adopted by this definition the
language of Chief Justice Hughes in United States v. Macintosh, supra, but
substituted the phrase "Supreme Being" for the "Appellation God". The Seeger
court, however, construed this substitution of terms as license to extend the
Congressional intent to include a definition of "belief in a Supreme Being" as
follows: "It is essentially an objective one, namely, does the claimed belief
occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox belief in God
holds in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption."
Though announcing this diluted version as the intended legislative meaning of
"religious . . . belief", the court nevertheless acknowledged that Congress
had referred in the Act to "this higher authority". (l.c. 175, 85 S.Ct.
850) The Seeger definition is not one of constitutional construction
*842 but of statutory interpretation neither controlling nor persuasive here
for a number of reasons. Contrary to this appellant's argument that the Court
in effect excised the concept of a Supreme Being from "religion" it can
reasonably be said that when the court spoke of "claimed belief" as occupying
"the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox belief in God holds
in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption," (Emphasis ours), the term
necessarily includes God or Supreme Being. This because the "claimed belief"
must equate qualitatively and quantitatively with the place God holds in the
life of one clearly qualified for exemption (e. g., a devout member of the
Society of Friends) and such would require a devotion to God (or an equivalent)
accompanied by a divinely inspired rejection of violence in the form of war.
It is against this or a similar orthodox standard of another "clearly qualified
for exemption" that an objector's "claimed belief" must measure. In the
alternative, Seeger may be said to mean that the "claimed belief" occupies the
same place in the life of the objector as that which an orthodox belief in God
holds in the lives of others clearly exempted, but the objector may choose not
to use the word "God" or "Supreme Being". In that sense Seeger's
interpretation of the Act seems more a matter of semantics than substance, but
in no sense can that case be considered as declaring a constitutional standard
circumscribing state action in the field of tax exemption.
[5][6] Appellant directs our attention to other authority, the most notable,
a decision of the California court of appeals in Fellowship of Humanity v.
County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394 (1957), which considered
a claimed exemption from city and county property tax on the ground that the
property was used "solely and exclusively for religious worship" within the
meaning of the California Constitution. When defining the term religion the
court held it is improper to include in the concept a belief in God or a
Supreme Being. The court stated "the belief or nonbelief in a Supreme Being is
a false factor," and went on to say "This simply means that 'religion' fills a
void that exists in the lives of most men. Regardless of why a particular
belief suffices, as long as it serves this purpose, it must be accorded the
same status of an orthodox religious belief. . . . (T)he proper
interpretation of the terms 'religion' or 'religious' in tax exemption laws
should not include any reference to whether the beliefs involved are theistic
or nontheistic. Religion simply includes: (1) a belief, not necessarily
referring to supernatural powers; (2) a cult, involving a gregarious
association openly expressing the belief; (3) a system of moral practice
directly resulting from an adherence to the belief; and (4) an organization
within the cult designed to observe the tenets of belief. The content of the
belief is of no moment." Under this loose concept it is readily apparent any
organization espousing moral principles, without theistic foundation, to which
the membership openly express belief might opt for the exempt status. We are
unwilling to ascribe such meaning to the expression "religious worship" in
Missouri's tax law. Instead we conclude that the constitutional and statutory
term religious worship of Art. X, s 6 and s 137.100 embody as a minimum
requirement a belief in the Supreme Being.[FN5]
FN5. Appellant contends that requiring devotion to worship of the Supreme
Being as a sine qua non to classification as religion and entitlement to
exemption from ad valorem taxation would be in direct contravention of the
First Amendment citing United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S.Ct.
850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965), Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct.
1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961), and Everson v. Board of Education of the
Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).
Appellant gives little explanation how these cases support its position and
the cases do not justify the contention made. Seeger, discussed at length
above, involves an interpretation of the Selective Service Act, with its
main thrust defining the statutory terms religious belief and Supreme
Being. Torcaso does not define religion, holding only that a state may not
require an oath declaring a belief in God as a prerequisite for holding
public office but indicated nothing that would limit a legislative grant of
tax exempt status to religious organizations. Everson dealt with the
constitutionality of the states (Maryland) providing bus service to
parochial school students. It did not suggest principles pertinent to the
issues here.
*843 Though appellant contends that worship of a Supreme Being is not
indispensable to a definition of "religious worship", it argues nevertheless
that Scientology "acknowledges the existence of God and recognizes and espouses
devotion to a Supreme Being" establishing its entitlement to the exemption. It
further argues no evidence supports the Commission's conclusion that
Scientology "appears to be more an applied philosophy which has a certain
religious connotation, but which falls short of being devoted to the worship of
the Supreme Being." This brings us to the questions of credibility and burden
of proof.
[7][8] An administrative agency may base its decision solely on a finding of
lack of credible testimony, though such testimony is uncontradicted or
unimpeached. Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686 (Mo.1959).
Veal v. Leimkuehler, 249 S.W.2d 491 (Mo.App.1952); State ex rel. Kahler v.
State Tax Commission, 393 S.W.2d 460 (Mo.1965); and Scott v. Wheelock
Bros., 357 Mo. 480, 209 S.W.2d 149 (1948). However, the Commission may not
arbitrarily disregard or ignore undisputed testimony of a witness not shown to
have been impeached or disbelieved by the Commission. Such was the case of the
county assessor in Koplar, supra. Unlike Koplar, the Commission here made
the following findings as to credibility of the witness: "We find the testimony
of the Reverend Frederick M. Rock generally not to be credible and worthy of
belief in particular in respect to his description and categorization of the
activities of the organization, its alleged religious services, its financial
structure and the nature of the so-called donations which are made to the
organization. The Commission finds that there is no sufficient credible
evidence presented by the appellant to satisfy the burden placed upon one
claiming exemption from taxation." The Commission then concluded "that with
the lack of credibility found by this Commission in the testimony of the
witness Rock and the lack of corroboration by any independent authority on
contemporary religions that the property owner has not satisfied the burden
placed on him." While the Commission findings are not insulated from review,
the court must "give due weight to the opportunity of the agency to observe the
witnesses." The Commission had ample opportunity to observe the demeanor as
well as the words of the witness and make a determination of credibility from
its point of vantage. It recognized testimonial inconsistencies and those
things petitioner failed to establish, finding that "appellant has some of the
trappings and accouterments of an organized religion, it appears to be more an
applied philosophy which has a certain religious connotation, but which falls
short of being devoted to the worship of a Supreme Being." The Commission
could properly consider the financial interest of the witness in the outcome of
the proceeding and the absence of corroborating testimony.[FN6] Giving due
*844 weight to the opportunity of the Commission to observe the witness and
the factors noted we find nothing sufficient to disturb its finding that the
witness was not credible.
FN6. The Church of Scientology presented one witness, Frederick M. Rock, a
recently ordained twenty-six year old minister of the church who detailed
the beliefs, activities, functions and history of the church. He testified
the church teaches the existence of God; that man has a spirit analogous to
a soul; that religious services are conducted each Sunday which include a
sermon and prayers; ministers of the church can perform marriage services,
funerals, and christenings; the church has a creed and worship services
similar to those of other religions; a code or doctrine and religious
tenets which preach: (1) man is good but must struggle to survive, (2) man
has a spiritual nature which gives him inalienable rights, and (3) each
person is responsible for and to the world; that the church is active in
charitable works; a training program for ministers which was not
characterized as a seminary; the church is an applied religious philosophy
because it teaches a way of life relating to the spirit and to God; and
finally that all the property in question is used to further the functions
of the church. However, this picture was clouded by admitted atypical
features. For example, Rev. Rock testified members of the Church of
Scientology can actively practice and belong to other religious faiths (i.
e., Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis belong and actively pursue the
worship of the Church of Scientology); the church raises its funds by
accepting "donations" for counseling services to members and non-members
alike for which a fixed schedule sets the charges, in either service or
cash, however about ten percent of the counseling sessions are gratuitous;
the church has no structured seminary but offers courses in which the
student sets his learning pace and at the end of which he may be ordained
as a minister; theirs is an applied religious philosophy teaching
methodology and the church keeps no formal membership rolls. As to the
interest of the witness he was in the employ of the church receiving about
$3,000.00 annually from monies raised in the St. Louis area. No attempt
was made to corroborate Rock's testimony with that of church officials,
parishioners, or others familiar with appellant and its system of beliefs.
No income or expense statements were introduced and the sources of income
and use of funds were ambiguous at best.
[9][10][11] The law places a substantial burden on those claiming exemptions
under the referenced constitutional and statutory provisions to establish that
their property falls within an exempted class. City of St. Louis v. State Tax
Commission, 524 S.W.2d 839 (Mo.banc 1975). It is firmly engrained that
taxation is the rule and exemption therefrom the exception, Midwest Bible and
Missionary Institute v. Sestric, 364 Mo. 167, 260 S.W.2d 25, 29-30 (1953),
and such claims are not favored in the law. Community Memorial Hospital v.
City of Moberly, 422 S.W.2d 290 (Mo.1967). The extent of this burden has
been characterized as requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Fitterer v.
Crawford, 157 Mo. 51, 57 S.W. 532 (1900).
Weighing the evidence in light of the appellant's sole witness' want of
credibility and against the substantial burden of proof required, we find the
record supports the Commission findings.
The judgment is affirmed.
MORGAN, C. J., and BARDGETT, HENLEY, FINCH and DONNELLY, JJ., concur.
SEILER, J., concurs in result in separate opinion filed.
APPENDIX
MISSOURI STATE TAX COMMISSION
Findings of Fact
1. The Missouri Church of Scientology was organized in 1969 and is a not-for-
profit corporation. The earliest incorporation of the Church of Scientology
elsewhere in the United States was in 1954.
2. The property in question was used in its headquarters at 4221 Lindell on
January 1, 1974.
3. There are ceremonies or services conducted on Sunday afternoons at the
headquarters. These are the only regular services (Tr. 14).
4. These services are presided over by ministers.
5. The founder of the Church is L. Ron Hubbard who is still living.
6. There is literature which is disseminated which encourages other persons to
join and there are other efforts made to achieve the same purpose.
7. The Missouri Church of Scientology also engages in public affairs such as
conducting a drug counseling program.
8. The property in question consisting of office equipment and furniture is
used in the promotion of the organization including keeping its records,
providing mailings to the membership.
9. The Church of Scientology does not have formal seminaries but requires that
prospective ministers go through counseling courses which are conducted in
their headquarter buildings.
10. There is no formal membership roll for the Church of Scientology.
11. The Church of Scientology is an applied religious philosophy having as its
members persons who belong to other formal religions such as members of the
Catholic and Lutheran churches and including Catholic priests and Jewish
rabbis (Tr. 23). Membership in other religious faiths does not preclude
membership in the Church of Scientology.
*845 12. There was no corroborative evidence from any independent witness
presented to the effect that the Missouri Church of Scientology is recognized
by any other religious faiths as being a bona fide religion.
13. We find the testimony of the Reverend Frederick M. Rock generally not to
be credible and worthy of belief in particular in respect to his description
and categorization of the activities of the organization, its alleged religious
services, its financial structure and the nature of the so-called donations
which are made to the organization.
14. The Commission finds that there is no sufficient credible evidence
presented by the appellant to satisfy the burden placed upon one claiming
exemption from taxation.
Conclusions of Law
1. Under Article X, Section 6 of the Missouri Constitution and Section 137.100
R.S.Mo. all property used exclusively for religious worship is exempt from
taxation.
2. This Commission has jurisdiction of this proceeding and the parties hereto,
and is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses appearing before it.
3. It is the function of the Commission to determine the credibility of
witnesses and to judge what probative weight or value to give to their
testimony.
4. As to claims for exemption from taxation the burden is on the owner
claiming his property to be exempt to establish that his property falls within
the exempted class. National Cemetery Ass'n. of Missouri v. Benson, 344 Mo.
784, 129 S.W.2d 842 (1939).
5. Exhibits which were marked and identified but which were never offered into
evidence cannot be considered as such by this Commission in its capacity as the
trier of fact.
6. Claims for exemption from taxation are not favored in the law and
provisions for exemption are strictly construed against one who claims to be
exempt.
7. It is concluded that with the lack of credibility found by this Commission
in the testimony of the witness Rock and the lack of corroboration by any
independent authority on contemporary religions that the property owner has not
satisfied the burden placed upon him.
8. While the appellant has some of the trappings and accoutrements of an
organized religion, it appears to be more an applied philosophy which has a
certain religious connotation, but which falls short of being devoted to the
worship of the Supreme Being, which this Commission concludes is necessary for
the property owner to have its property considered exclusively for religious
worship. The Commission does not believe that an applied religious philosophy
is identical for purposes of exemption with an organized religion devoted to
religious worship.
9. The personal property of the appellant has not, therefore, been shown to be
used exclusively for religious worship or charitable purposes and therefore
cannot be exempted from ad valorem taxation.
10. The decision of the Board of Equalization placing an assessment of
$5,000.00 upon the personal property of the Missouri Church of Scientology for
the year 1974 is herewith affirmed.
SEILER, Judge, concurring in result.
As I understand the situation, the only evidence offered by appellant before
the commission was a witness whom the commission found not credible with
respect to his testimony bearing on the issues. We are not going to disturb
that finding. Beyond question, then, appellant has not carried the burden of
establishing an exemption from taxation. In my opinion, this disposes of the
appeal.
We should be careful not to do anything to restrict religious freedom and I am
sure the principal opinion has no intention to do otherwise, but if it is
necessary to define religious worship or religion, I do not believe we should
restrict the definition to conventional orthodox religions, which it seems to
me is what the principal opinion does. History shows that what is
orthodoxy *846 today was once heresy. I therefore concur in result only.